T 455/09 – From The Department Of Corrections

This is an examination appeal.

Claim 1 before the Board read (in English translation):

1. Method for the treatment of a digital audio, image or video file, comprising a reduction phase were at least one couple of values of the file is reduced to a representative compressed value (Q_R), and a reconstitution phase where the file is reconstituted to its original form from said representative compressed value, characterised in that

I. the reduction phase comprises

• taking into account for said at least one couple of values of the file, one of these values being greater than the other (sic);
• determining of an integrating value V_T consisting in the greater value of said couple, and an integrated value that is equal to the ratio of the smaller value V_I and the integrating value V_T;
• determining the representative compressed value Q_R based on which the couple of values of the original file can be recomposed, this representative compressed value Q_R being equal to the sum of a value C_F that is equal to the rounded value of the integrated value V_I /V_T  multiplied by ten, C_F = (V_I /V_T ∙10), and the rounded value of the ratio of the integrating value V_T and a coefficient C_V that is variable according to the desired compression and error rates, multiplied by ten, Q_R = rnd [V_T / C_V ∙10]+ C_F;

II. the reconstitution phase for the couple of values of the file comprises, consecutively, according to a process that is inversed with respect to the reduction phase:

• calculating the reconstituted integrating value V_T^* by means of the relationship V_T^* = rnd [Q_R/10∙ C_V)];
• calculating the reconstituted smaller value V_I^* by means of the formula V_I^* = [V_T^*∙ C_F/10];
• reconstituting the file comprising the couple of reconstituted values V_T^* and V_I^*.

One of the issues discussed by the Board was whether the corrections under R 139 requested by the applicant were to be allowed.

*** Translation of the French original ***

[2.1] There are obvious inconsistencies in the description and the claims as filed, between the formulas for calculating the representative value Q_R and the reconstituted values V_I and V_T* on the one hand and the numerical examples that should exemplify them on the other hand. In order to be allowable, the correction of these errors pursuant to R 139 has to be obvious for the skilled person.

The reconstituted value V_I^*

[2.2] The original formula for calculating the reconstituted value V_I^* refers to a variable “C_V” that is not described elsewhere and is clearly erroneous. The replacement of “C_V” by “C_F” is obvious in view of the fact that the formula has to correspond to the inverse of the formula for calculating C_F.

Thus the formula may be corrected pursuant to R 139 to read:

V_I^* = [V_T^*∙ C_F/10].

The reconstituted value V_T^*

[2.3] The original formula for calculating the reconstituted value V_T^* refers to a variable “V_R” that is not described elsewhere and is clearly erroneous. In analogy to V_I^*, the replacement of “V_R” by “Q_R” is obvious.

Thus the formula may be corrected pursuant to R 139 to read:

V_T^* = rnd (Q_R/10∙ C_V).

Representative value Q_R

[2.4.1] The numerical example contains two obvious mistakes. The displacement of the opening bracket “[“ in the numerical examples for the values C_F and Q_R (page 6, lines 15 and 16) is obvious because it has to delimit the argument of the rounding function in these examples.

[2.4.2] The appellant requests the replacement of the original formula for calculating Q_R, i.e. Q_R = rnd [V_T / C_V ∙10] + C_F by the corrected formula Q_R = rnd [V_T / C_V]∙10 + C_F. The Board finds this correction to be inacceptable, for the following reasons:

The numerical value that is obtained for Q_R is 409 when the original formula is used, whereas the description (page 6, lines 15 and 16) is 407.

The skilled person facing the obvious inconsistencies in the original disclosure would have (at least) two possible choices, i.e. either to correct the formula, as requested by the appellant, or to correct the numerical example. The calculation according to the corrected formula would yield the described value Q_R = 407. Based on this result, the reconstituted values would be V_T^* = 4070 and V_I^* = 2849. The calculation according to the original value would yield a value Q_R = 409. Based on this result, the reconstituted values would be V_T^* = 4090 and V_I^* = 2863. The reconstituted values obtained with the two alternatives are very close of the initial values 4024 and 2869, such that the skilled person could not exclude either alternative.

The appellant points out that the reconstituted values according to the original formula were V_T^* = 4090 and V_I^* = 3681. The value for V_I^* was so far from the initial value 2869 that the skilled person would exclude this alternative and correct the formula rather than the numerical example. However, this conclusion presupposes that the skilled person would have understood that the value for C_F to be used in the reconstitution formula was not the one obtained according to the description (page 6, line 7)

and to claim 1, but the one obtained by isolating the figure of units “9” of the Q_R value (“409”). This step is not explained in the original application, which only mentions the action of “dissociating the representative value (Q_R)” (see page 6, line 18). The need to isolate the figure of the units can only be deduced by analysing the corrected formula and, therefore, by setting aside the original formula, which is precisely the formula to be used for calculating Q_R in the alternative under consideration. The Board is of the opinion that the appellant’s reasoning is not convincing.

.

In conclusion, the skilled person, even if it envisaged only the two alternatives of correction mentioned above, could not exclude either with certainty. As a consequence, it is not apparent, directly and without ambiguity, that no other text than the one resulting from the correction could have been envisaged initially.

[2.4.3] Consequently, the correction under R 139, second sentence, of the formula for calculating Q_R has to be refused.

Should you wish to download the whole decision (in French), just click here.

The file wrapper can be found here.